United States of America v. Mauricio Aguilera

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAURICIO AGUILERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10048
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00988-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges
Mauricio Aguilera appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review discretionary denials of sentence
reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 30 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10048
1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
It is undisputed that Aguilera is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction
under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, and that the district court concluded that
a sentence reduction from 168 months to 135 months was warranted in this case.
However, Aguilera contends that the district court did not adequately explain its
reasons for rejecting his request for a 120-month sentence. Under Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018), the district court’s explanation was
sufficient. In light of the record at the original sentencing and the district court’s
certification that it considered Aguilera’s motion and took into account the relevant
Guideline policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the
district court’s orders demonstrate that it considered the parties’ arguments and that
it had a reasoned basis for exercising its legal decisionmaking authority. See
Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1966.
To the extent that Aguilera seeks to raise additional issues for the first time
in his reply brief, we decline to consider them. See United States v. Kama, 394
F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --